By the way the end user IS a major problem. I have no issue with the TSO testing.

When a rigger manages to get a reserve to not deploy it would be best if the manufacturer could replicate the failure. It can provide insight into what NOT to do, inform or change maintenance practise or simply show that a particular way of doing things is wrong.

I'm not sure that I agree with grounding equipment, based on speculation though. There are too many variables and taking the 'conservative' approach can seriously damage a business.

Agreed 100%

I can fabricate plenty of pictures of shit supposedly not working. I hope those pictures alone won't be enough to convince the manufacturers or various parachuting associations of the products' lack of airworthiness.

From what was described and shown in stills...the pin was pulled by hand with the protective flap open and the riggers hand using the top flap for leverage to pull on the cable.

Well that's what Aerodyne is saying based apparently on the video, but it isn't clear whether that is true. The first frame of the video given to Aerodyne shows someone holding the pin end of the ripcord.

I don't know why Aerodyne assumes only that that's how the reserve was popped. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't; one can invent scenarios for both.

If the rigger did pull the pin out from the pin end, while pressing down on the rig, that could indeed let the pilot chute start to expand only slowly, making it easier for friction of all the flaps to hang it up.

As for the rig not being worn, OK, that does affect geometry. But does one want a rig where the company says that the reserve does "table total" occasionally?

And to reiterate from a prior post, since we don't know what the reserve canopy is or how much slack there really was in the loop, I'm not sure we can say that the closing loop was terribly long. Longer than ideal, sure, but how much is unclear. I also don't want to have a rig where it table totals because of a half inch too long loop.

The Icon is probably no worse than other rigs, but Aerodyne's response could have been much more convincing.

I have pulled a couple Reserves like that and even might have my hand ont he top flap, but the pilot chute still launched out no matter what, or what rig! and looking at the pics i would def expect the RPC to clear those flaps even at that stage.

I would disagree with nigel, i would also have grounded all rigs immediatley.call me old fashioned but better safe than sorry in my opinion. I dont know the expierience level of the rigger involved, but in my opinion he made the right call. he was unsure of what happend and asked for help with this matter and got the right people involved.

however my main concern is that the launch of a RPC could greatly be reduced if the incorrect lenght loop is used. there has been several discussion on here about that with different rigs,end result the reserve container flaps not opening or severly restricted and slowed down. the report says this loop was 7/8 to long, which to me,is not really that excessive! i have packed some rigs using a 3.5-4" loop. and after 6 months that this loop had stretched out. so in my opinion this is the real safety issue that needs to be looked at and addressed immediatley. manufactures and the industry should come together to see what can be done about it. if a loop that is slightly to long can reduce dramaticly the effectiveness of a RPC surely that is a MAJOR Problem???

the longest loop i have replaced was when i inspect a vector rig from an arriving visitor. i immediatley noticed that the RPC was def not seated correctly and i could compress it a huge amount. i explained it to the jumper and replaced the reserve closing loop for him which was a staggering 8.5" it had a seal on it but i was unable to identify the rigger involved. however the RPC on the vector still did its job.( it was a big boy RIG)

a) As I pointed out, that's based on a factory statement about the correct loop length is 1/2 cm shorter than the shortest listed in the manual for three different sizes of reserve in the manual (which vary in a range of 2 cm).

b) Therefore Aerodyne is saying that the loop is too long compared to their own secret knowledge of the correct length.

c) It supposes that there is zero variation in allowed loop length. If Mr. Factory Rigger in Florida says "3 inches" is normal for a particular rig, am I a bad rigger if I use a 3 1/4" loop in winter in dry air where I am?

d) As you pointed out, a little slack has always been considered acceptable after being packed a long time. (Although having much slack is now less common with small rigs and leverage devices to make rigs super tight.)

It would all be easier if they just said that with the rig packed, they could push down on and compress the pilot chute and pull the pin & loop up an extra X" of slack, whatever that number might be.

An RSL activation of the reserve does not use the reserve handle but pulls the cable just above the pin, we acknowledge that the rigger`s hand in this instance may have restricted the opening sequence, however the handle is not always the way a reserve is opened.

All being said, the rig was not on someone at activation which it would need to be in a real scenario or realistic test.

Quick, prompt and concise response from the manufacturer - Have a great evening all. Peace

An RSL activation of the reserve does not use the reserve handle but pulls the cable just above the pin, we acknowledge that the rigger`s hand in this instance may have restricted the opening sequence, however the handle is not always the way a reserve is open

What you are missing here is that to have the reserve pin pulled from the RSL, the main have to be out first. Here the big part of the problem is the main being still in the rig.

a) As I pointed out, that's based on a factory statement about the correct loop length is 1/2 cm shorter than the shortest listed in the manual for three different sizes of reserve in the manual (which vary in a range of 2 cm).

b) Therefore Aerodyne is saying that the loop is too long compared to their own secret knowledge of the correct length.

c) It supposes that there is zero variation in allowed loop length. If Mr. Factory Rigger in Florida says "3 inches" is normal for a particular rig, am I a bad rigger if I use a 3 1/4" loop in winter in dry air where I am?

d) As you pointed out, a little slack has always been considered acceptable after being packed a long time. (Although having much slack is now less common with small rigs and leverage devices to make rigs super tight.)

It would all be easier if they just said that with the rig packed, they could push down on and compress the pilot chute and pull the pin & loop up an extra X" of slack, whatever that number might be.

+1

I would like to see one more piece of information included in all deployment tests... the pull force. I have seen several rigs (some from manufacturers that push maximum closing loop lengths) that have come in with ripcord pull forces in excess of 22-lbs. Highest was ~40+lbs, packed by the factory, tested while worn and adjusted correctly.

Ok, Aerodyne says all is well when using the correct (apparently shorter than manual) length loop, but was the pull force acceptable with that loop? NOT saying it wasn't, but based on what I've seen come in, I'd like to know...

JW

PS (edited to add) I have no insight to this particular issue, nor Aerodyne's tests and have not personally seen one of their rigs pull hard.

a) As I pointed out, that's based on a factory statement about the correct loop length is 1/2 cm shorter than the shortest listed in the manual for three different sizes of reserve in the manual (which vary in a range of 2 cm).

b) Therefore Aerodyne is saying that the loop is too long compared to their own secret knowledge of the correct length.

c) It supposes that there is zero variation in allowed loop length. If Mr. Factory Rigger in Florida says "3 inches" is normal for a particular rig, am I a bad rigger if I use a 3 1/4" loop in winter in dry air where I am?

d) As you pointed out, a little slack has always been considered acceptable after being packed a long time. (Although having much slack is now less common with small rigs and leverage devices to make rigs super tight.)

It would all be easier if they just said that with the rig packed, they could push down on and compress the pilot chute and pull the pin & loop up an extra X" of slack, whatever that number might be.

+1

I would like to see one more piece of information included in all deployment tests... the pull force. I have seen several rigs (some from manufacturers that push maximum closing loop lengths) that have come in with ripcord pull forces in excess of 22-lbs. Highest was ~40+lbs, packed by the factory, tested while worn and adjusted correctly.

Ok, Aerodyne says all is well when using the correct (apparently shorter than manual) length loop, but was the pull force acceptable with that loop? NOT saying it wasn't, but based on what I've seen come in, I'd like to know...

Just to state the obvious in answer to some of the points people have raised. The most well known recognized test is the TSO and the rig is not on someones back for those tests.

The manufacturer has not been able to replicate the malfunction and therefore has not explained it. A theory is nothing more than a theory until it is proved.

The manufacturer has not recommended any action to avoid the same problem occurring again. Other than correct length closing loop. But as they couldn't replicate the problem with an over length loop that would appear to indicate the loop didn't cause the issue.

This is not the first time this has happened by any means there have been a number of incidents involving several manufacturers so the problem is well known and over length loops do appear to contribute. This is just the latest example that the problem is still around.

But ask yourself this if a container tested to the TSO requirements can fail to open when opened by the method designed to open it. e.g. pulling the pin. Will it work when opened by an AAD that has not been tested at all as part of the TSO. When a container is opened by the AAD, which is also an unconventional method, the container does not have to meet any standard for performance. Add the extra piece of string left in the grommets when the AAD fires and it sure is not going to help the container to open. So when your AAD tries to save you at 780 ft cuts the loop and nothing happens its to late.

Now is the time to ask the manufacturers what the hard deck is for your container when it is opened by the AAD or the pin?????.

The previous poster's assumption that Airtec have introduced the ability to set the hard deck so they can blame the jumper is a bit ridiculous. I think its more likely they know some containers take to long to deploy.

) As I pointed out, that's based on a factory statement about the correct loop length is 1/2 cm shorter than the shortest listed in the manual for three different sizes of reserve in the manual (which vary in a range of 2 cm).

b) Therefore Aerodyne is saying that the loop is too long compared to their own secret knowledge of the correct length.

c) It supposes that there is zero variation in allowed loop length. If Mr. Factory Rigger in Florida says "3 inches" is normal for a particular rig, am I a bad rigger if I use a 3 1/4" loop in winter in dry air where I am?

d) As you pointed out, a little slack has always been considered acceptable after being packed a long time. (Although having much slack is now less common with small rigs and leverage devices to make rigs super tight.)

It would all be easier if they just said that with the rig packed, they could push down on and compress the pilot chute and pull the pin & loop up an extra X" of slack, whatever that number might be.

+1 from here too.

Am I the only one that sees what's going on here?

- Stiffened side flaps + a large pilot chute cap (it's sides within an inch of the sidewalls and main/reserve dividing wall) means that the pilot chute top cap is pushing with it's edges against the furthest end of the opening (the hinge side of the flap).

It's the same thing as trying to push a door open by it's hinge side - it requires a lot of force.

The pilot chute slowly pushes the "hinge" sides until the top cap "hits" the stiffeners, and there you have it - Total Malfunction.

This is a design problem on almost all small-sized rigs with fully concealed reserve pilot chutes that are available today.

I can think of 3 solutions to this problem:

1. A smaller pilot chute cap (would punch the center instead of the hinge side of the flaps) 2. Less stiffening of the flaps, and (dare I say the next one?) 3. An externally mounted pilot chute

) As I pointed out, that's based on a factory statement about the correct loop length is 1/2 cm shorter than the shortest listed in the manual for three different sizes of reserve in the manual (which vary in a range of 2 cm).

b) Therefore Aerodyne is saying that the loop is too long compared to their own secret knowledge of the correct length.

c) It supposes that there is zero variation in allowed loop length. If Mr. Factory Rigger in Florida says "3 inches" is normal for a particular rig, am I a bad rigger if I use a 3 1/4" loop in winter in dry air where I am?

d) As you pointed out, a little slack has always been considered acceptable after being packed a long time. (Although having much slack is now less common with small rigs and leverage devices to make rigs super tight.)

It would all be easier if they just said that with the rig packed, they could push down on and compress the pilot chute and pull the pin & loop up an extra X" of slack, whatever that number might be.

+1 from here too.

Am I the only one that sees what's going on here?

- Stiffened side flaps + a large pilot chute cap (it's sides within an inch of the sidewalls and main/reserve dividing wall) means that the pilot chute top cap is pushing with it's edges against the furthest end of the opening (the hinge side of the flap).

It's the same thing as trying to push a door open by it's hinge side - it requires a lot of force.

The pilot chute slowly pushes the "hinge" sides until the top cap "hits" the stiffeners, and there you have it - Total Malfunction.

This is a design problem on almost all small-sized rigs with fully concealed reserve pilot chutes that are available today.

I can think of 3 solutions to this problem:

1. A smaller pilot chute cap (would punch the center instead of the hinge side of the flaps) 2. Less stiffening of the flaps, and (dare I say the next one?) 3. An externally mounted pilot chute

The previous poster's assumption that Airtec have introduced the ability to set the hard deck so they can blame the jumper is a bit ridiculous. I think its more likely they know some containers take to long to deploy.

Why do you think that it's an assumption? And I never said that Airtec wants to blame the jumper. What I said that they don't want to be sued when their unit did its job, but someone else's product failed.... For you might be a ridiculous reason, but Airtec had to spend money in the past to defend themselves in the court , so I guess they know better.

And of course they are aware of the problem with some containers. USPA is aware of the problem as well. Even the container manufacturers are aware of the problem with their rigs, but as long as the TSO is valid and people are buying the rigs, there's no reason for change.

Someone might argue that there's no problem at all since it happens once-twice per year over some million jumps all over the world and statistically they will be right. What about that?!

The previous poster's assumption that Airtec have introduced the ability to set the hard deck so they can blame the jumper is a bit ridiculous. I think its more likely they know some containers take to long to deploy.

Why do you think that it's an assumption? And I never said that Airtec wants to blame the jumper. What I said that they don't want to be sued when their unit did its job, but someone else's product failed.... For you might be a ridiculous reason, but Airtec had to spend money in the past to defend themselves in the court , so I guess they know better.

And of course they are aware of the problem with some containers. USPA is aware of the problem as well. Even the container manufacturers are aware of the problem with their rigs, but as long as the TSO is valid and people are buying the rigs, there's no reason for change.

Someone might argue that there's no problem at all since it happens once-twice per year over some million jumps all over the world and statistically they will be right. What about that?!

What you actually said was

"To get themselves off the hook in the courtroom when somebody hit the ground with the free-bag still in the container. They just want to give the responsibility to the jumper . That's all"

You very clearly say they want to give the responsibility to the jumper. You didn't say anything about being sued. Nor did you mention anyone Else's product failing.

I see now maybe what you meant is

"To get themselves of the hook in the courtroom when somebody hit the ground with the free bag in the container because the free-bag stayed in the container even though the AAD had fired at the set altitude."

Its just not what you said.

You are correct that the Manufacturers see no reason to change things. Unless you as customers start asking relevant question. If enough people ask and the answers get circulated people may start to choose equipment based on its performance and reliability. manufacturers would have to fall in line with those that can give the answers or loose their market position. But I am stating the obvious. Ask your container manufacturer what the Hard deck is for your container reserve combination. What is the drag factor for your Reserve pilot chute Etc.

As I said before I don't usually post on forums because its to easy to get suckered into these rather pointless misdirected debates. Use a bit more time tackling the manufacturers

I got in touch with a senior person at Aerodyne. Although their public statement left too much out in my opinion, which attracted my criticism, they do have some additional information.

-- The reserve was a Smart 160, a perfect size for the Icon I5.

-- They have since tested with someone pushing down a moderate amount on the top flap, but haven't been able to lock up the pilot chute that way.

-- The reserve loop lengths suggested in the manual could use some updating and they'll look at that.

-- When that particular rig was closed, a rigger could push down hard on the pilot chute and pull up with a bar and pullup cord, and get 7/8" of slack in the reserve loop. So there was indeed a lot more slack than one normally expects.

-- Aerodyne didn't just blame the rigger and wash their hands of it all when the statement was issued. They're still interested in more evaluation & testing, despite not being able to replicate the issue so far.

I got in touch with a senior person at Aerodyne. Although their public statement left too much out in my opinion, which attracted my criticism, they do have some additional information.

-- The reserve was a Smart 160, a perfect size for the Icon I5.

-- They have since tested with someone pushing down a moderate amount on the top flap, but haven't been able to lock up the pilot chute that way.

-- The reserve loop lengths suggested in the manual could use some updating and they'll look at that.

-- When that particular rig was closed, a rigger could push down hard on the pilot chute and pull up with a bar and pullup cord, and get 7/8" of slack in the reserve loop. So there was indeed a lot more slack than one normally expects.

-- Aerodyne didn't just blame the rigger and wash their hands of it all when the statement was issued. They're still interested in more evaluation & testing, despite not being able to replicate the issue so far.

That's good. Unfortunately one thing that's very hard to replicate is that little bit of extra resistance added to everything just because it has been closed for months and everything is bedded in and settled. Even the flap fabric will stretch and take on a slight set shape over time. Perhaps its time to introduce a standard method of opening reserves for repack to try and identify this type of issue on containers that have been closed for months and maybe measure extraction force while we are at it.